Norwood City
Council
Council
Chambers
A) CALL TO ORDER
The Council for the City of Norwood met in regular session on the above date with President Pro-Tempore Mr. Will DeLuca presiding. The meeting opened with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance.
B) PRAYER
C) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
D) ROLL CALL
On roll call, the following members answered present: Mr. Gabbard, Mr. Sanker, Mr. Tracey, Mr. Moore, Mr. Fulmer, Mr. Geers, Mr. Mumper, Mrs. Brown and Mr. DeLuca.
E) AMENDMENT OF AGENDA:
On a motion by Mr. Fulmer, seconded by Mr. Mumper, it was moved to amend the agenda by adding Communication 8), 9), 10), 11), 12), and 13), to move the request to address council to on Resolution J-A) to immediately following the Committee reports, Communication O-1) and Resolution J-A) to immediately following the request to address council on the same matter, and by moving Communication 13) to immediately preceding Ordinance I-A) along with requests to address Council on that same matter. All members present voted YES.
F)
APPROVE MINUTES FROM: November
23, 2004 and
On a motion by Mr. Fulmer, seconded by Mr. Tracey, it was moved to approve the minutes as if read. All members present voted YES.
G) Requests to address council on agenda items
Requests to address Council were moved to immediately preceding the consideration of the related agenda item.
H) Reports of Standing committees of council
1. Community Development and Small Business RE: Schoolhouse Outfitters.
On a motion by Mr. Fulmer, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved to accept the report. All members present voted YES.
1. Community Development and Small Business RE: Cornerstone at Norwood Design Review (Lincoln Financial Signage).
On a motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Geers, it was moved to accept the report. All members present voted YES.
As amended, Communication O-1) was addressed at this time.
Letter from Rick Dettmer, Community Development Director RE: Schoolhouse Outfitters Enterprise Zone Agreement.
On a motion by Mr. Fulmer, seconded by Mr. Tracey, it was moved that the letter be received and filed and that the request to address Council be granted at this time. All members present voted YES.
At this point Mr. Dettmer, Mr. Brennan from Schoolhouse Outfitters LLC, and Mr. Kathman from the Hamilton County Business Center addressed Council and explained that Schoolhouse Outfitters LLC is considering relocation to 4950 Franklin Avenue, a vacant two-story, 10,000 sq. ft. office building. The business is a distributor of school furniture and equipment, they anticipate up to 100 employees in their long range plans.
Mr. DeLuca clarified that the agreement is between the County and Schoolhouse Outfitters. Mr. Kathman confirmed that understanding and explained however that this Resolution is needed. Without the cooperation of the local jurisdiction, the County will not enter into the agreement.
Mr. DeLuca asked about the financial implication. Mr. Kathman answered that over six years this would abate 50% of the improvements to the property, but without filling this vacant building there would be no additional property taxes to the County or Earnings Tax to the City.
Mrs. Brown asked for the total implication of the abatement. Mr. Kathman explained that this abatement would be less than $2500 over the life of the abatement, but this is more than made up in the filling of a vacant building and the increased Earnings taxes. Mr. Dettmer clarified that this abatement only applies to the improvements not to the tax burden of the existing structure.
As amended, Resolution J-A) was considered at this time.
A) RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO AND SCHOOLHOUSE OUTFITTERS LLC. WITHIN AN ENTERPRISE ZONE OF HAMILTON COUNTY.
On a motion by Mr. Fulmer, seconded by Mr. Tracey, it was moved to suspend the rules and have all three readings of the Resolution. All members present voted YES.
Mr. Moore noted that the Earnings taxes alone would generate between $30,000 and $50,000 annually.
On a motion by Mr. Fulmer, seconded by Mr. Tracey, it was moved to pass the Resolution. All members present voted YES.
I) THIRD reading of ORDINANCES
Requests to address Council regarding this Ordinance were heard immediately preceding the consideration of the Ordinance.
Several members of the community spoke against this Ordinance. The speakers questioned the need of the Ordinance, the need for the emergency clause attached to this Ordinance, the need to pass this Ordinance tonight, and asked questions that they feel were not previously answered by Council or Mr. Burke. Those that spoke against this Ordinance included Ms. Pat Zartman, Mr. Michael Clemons, Ms. Yvonne Collins, Mr. Joe Horney, Ms. Carmen McKeehan, and Ms. Margaret Wehmeyer.
During Mr. Horney’s address to Council, on a motion by Mr. Gabbard, seconded by Mr. Mumper, it was moved to allow Mr. Horney the additional time needed to finish reading the letter. All members presented voted YES.
Prior to Ms. McKeehan’s address, on a motion by Mr. Gabbard, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved to allow Ms. McKeehan the 8 minutes she asked for to complete her address. All members presented voted YES.
As amended, Council then heard Communication O-13).
Letter from Assistant Law Director, Ted Kiser RE: Amended Ordinance Revising Chapter 163 Urban Renewal.
On a motion by Mr. Fulmer, seconded by Mr. Geers, it was moved that the letter be received and filed and that the amended Ordinance replace the existing version on the agenda. All members present voted YES.
A) ORDINANCE AMENDING AND UPDATING CHAPTER 163 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF NORWOOD DEALING WITH URBAN RENEWAL AND DECLARING AND EMERGENCY, AS AMENDED.
On the motion by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Gabbard, it was moved to further amend the Ordinance by deleting Section 3. The following members voted YES: Mr. Gabbard, Mr. Tracey, Mr. Moore, and Mrs. Brown. The following members voted No: Mr. Sanker, Mr. Fulmer, Mr. Geers, Mr. Mumper, and Mr. DeLuca. The motion failed.
Mr. Moore asked Mr. Burke, who was present in Chambers, to come to the podium to answer some questions regarding this Ordinance. Mr. Moore asked Mr. Burke who initiated the drafting of this Ordinance. Mr. Burke responded that he strongly recommended to the Law Department that the current Chapter 163 be updated, and agreed to draft the Ordinance with his initial recommendations.
Mr. Moore asked if this Ordinance needs to have the emergency clause. Mr. Burke responded that while most changes simply modify and clarify the existing 163, there are several changes that are required in order to get the Ordinance in compliance with the Ohio Revised Code and therefore render the current Chapter 163 legal.
Mr. Gabbard asked for clarification of the term “Rust Belt”. Mr. Burke responded that this is simply standard terminology for those cities that were once heavily industrial and in need of undergoing renewal in order to stay solvent. Mr. Gabbard stated he does not care for that terminology.
Mr. Gabbard asked about the language that mentions the use of blight and/or eminent domain as a means to procure and create additional jobs. Mr. Burke responded that he does not subscribe to the argument that eminent domain can be used for the sole purpose of economic development. However, economic development can certainly be part of an Urban Renewal Plan as is stated in the Ohio Constitution which declares economic development and the creation of employment opportunities to be a public purpose.
Mr. Gabbard asked for several clarifications of the definitions associated with blight including what was meant by “nonconforming units of lot sizes” and how that would be determined. Mr. Burke responded that there is a standard lot size in the City zoning code based on different districts of the City.
Mr. Gabbard asked for clarification of the term “Diversity of Ownership”. Mr. Burke responded, the Diversity of Ownership that is provided in Title 7.25 of the Ohio Revised Code applies specifically to municipalities. Mr. Burke read from this chapter which describes a blighted area. Many of the changes in the Ordinance that were added come from the Ohio Revised Code directly. The conditions that were taken out were not required in the definition and were removed as an attempt to update. For example, infant mortality was removed as it no longer applies in the definition of blight.
Mr. Gabbard asked for clarification of the dead-end streets criteria and claimed that there are numerous streets that are either too narrow or dead end and do not allow an appropriate turning radius. Mr. Burke responded that during his preparation for Court proceedings the Fire Chief identified only three dead end streets that required backing out onto a major street rather than turning around due to inadequate turning area on those streets.
Mr. Gabbard asked for clarification of the term “deteriorating” and “in danger of deteriorating” and asked if he could identify any properties in Norwood that are not deteriorating. Mr. Burke responded that it is not helpful to do so and that the same language is in the existing Chapter 163 and has been for 40 years. This particular reference is not a proposed change.
Mr. Fulmer clarified that this is an Urban Renewal ordinance. Chapter 163.03 contains a mention of Eminent Domain. Mr. Fulmer asked if this Ordinance changed the process at all to make eminent domain easier or if the usual process including review by the Planning Commission, Public Hearings, and majority of Council approving such an action. Mr. Burke confirmed and added that in addition to the steps he mentioned in an eminent domain case; a Resolution is needed, Appropriations passed which must be passed by a 2/3 majority of Council.
Mr. Moore asked Mr. Burke to clarify Urban Renewal and Eminent Domain. Mr. Burke answered that Urban Renewal is a plan. Eminent Domain is one of many tools that are available to implement the urban renewal plan. He also clarified that Eminent Domain does not permit the “taking of property”; property owners must be duly compensated.
Mrs. Brown asked for a breakout of the definitions of “slum, blighted, deteriorated” and “deteriorating” and how those were changed. Mr. Burke responded that the initial code combined those definitions but the Ohio Revised Code and most other Urban Renewal Ordinances have separate definitions for “slum area” and “blighted area”.
Mrs. Brown asked mentioned that the language including “substantial vacancy of existing structures” was not included in the existing current 163 but is added here and seems to assist redevelopment. Mr. Burke acknowledged that point.
Mr. Fulmer added that this Ordinance needs to be updated. This needs to be updated as the last revision was 40 years ago. Upon passage the original 163 is repealed in its entirety. Mr. Burke agreed that those were the two main reasons for this Ordinance.
Mr. Moore felt that on one side, one reading is appropriate. On the other side of the argument is that it really won’t make it easier. This new Ordinance does not make the use of eminent domain any easier. The real test is to ask if there are properties that would meet the criteria of the proposed wording that would not meet the criteria in the existing version. Mr. Moore does not think that is the case. Further, if this is not adopted now, there is nothing preventing passing this Ordinance when there is a pending project if in fact it makes a difference.
Mrs. Brown commented that the proposed version provides more definition, more clarity, and that she believes this makes the use of eminent domain more difficult. For example, the wording in the old document is “lack of maintenance or repair”. The new version modifies this to read “repeated incidents of building, health, fire, and other life safety violations”. The new version is much clearer and much more focused.
Mr. Fulmer noted that this is the third Council meeting in which this has been considered and it’s time to move on. As to the questions that were submitted in writing to Council, they were dropped off less than two days prior to the imposed deadline for answers and he had to work during the narrow window provided. He added that he is for this Ordinance, it hasn’t been modified in 41 years, and needs to be updated. Mr. Fulmer said Norwood needs urban renewal to survive and it has been used effectively in the past to generate more Norwood based businesses than ever before. Eminent domain is a tool that is very rarely used in the implementation of urban renewal plans, for example it was not needed in Rookwood Commons, Rookwood Pavilion, Surrey Square years ago, or Cornerstone. There are no plans to take homes. Eminent Domain has its place and is a needed tool in Urban Renewal, but it should be carefully used.
Mr. Mumper added that he is also in favor of this Ordinance that adds clarity to the existing 163. Contrary to what has been said previously, there is nothing behind the scenes or in the works. The existing Chapter 163 just needs updating.
Mr. Gabbard noted that he agrees in principle that this needs updating but this could possibly be clarified even further and taken to the next level. One reading tonight is fine and we can continue to have discussion.
On a motion from Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Gabbard, it was moved to have the first reading of the amended Ordinance. This motion was later superseded.
On a motion by Mr. DeLuca, seconded by Mr. Gabbard, it was moved to place this Ordinance into the Community Development Committee where there will be a Town Meeting. All members present voted YES.
The Chair announced a 5 Minute Recess.
J) INTRODUCTORY readings of RESOLUTIONS
A) RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUN TY COMMISSIONERS OF HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO AND SCHOOLHOUSE OUTFITTERS LLC WITHIN AN ENTERPRISE ZONE OF HAMILTON COUNTY.
As amended, this item was considered immediately following the Committee Reports.
B) RESOLUTION FOR ADVANCE PAYMENT PER OHIO REVISED CODE 321.34 AND 135.351, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Mr. Moore mentioned that this Ordinance simply asks the County to send our share of property taxes as they are received as opposed to the normal schedule of payments.
On a motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Tracey, it was moved to suspend the rules and have all three readings of the Ordinance. All members present voted YES.
On a motion by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Mumper, it was moved to pass the Ordinance. All members present voted YES.
K) ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
The Mayor was present and noted that the City has heard back on SERB’s decision regarding the Fire Fighters contract and he would like input on Council regarding next steps. As background, the position of Firefighters Local 445 was that the contract was presented to Council and Council failed to act on the contract within the allotted time and by default this contract is active. The City’s position is that the contract was never formally presented to Council requesting action. SERB’s decision was that Council was in fact presented with the Contract and therefore is obligated to honor the contract retroactive to January 1, 2004. We have the option to appeal the decision if it is desired by Council and the Administration, if not we need to allocate funds for backpay.
When opened for questions and comment on this issue, Mr. Fulmer noted that we are at least $1.6 Million in the hole while deferring bills from our creditors. Early projections suggest the City will be $4 Million in debt by end of 2005. Given SERBs decision, should we enter Fiscal Emergency if that will allow us to renegotiate contracts?
The Mayor responded that these contracts were all negotiated by the book and the proceedings were all legal; the only point of contention was whether or not Council was ever prompted to act on this contract. As to appealing this decision, he has heard from attorneys both that the outcome likely won’t be any different and that we won’t know until we try. The risk/reward ratio is right for appealing.
Mr. Sanker added that he would like to hear from the Law Department directly on the likelihood of a successful appeal. From a Finance Committee perspective, we can encumber funds to cover backpay but this only accelerates the day that we cannot make the necessary payments in other areas. We started the year at a deficit and this just adds to that deficit. Everyone’s interest is critical. This is not an issue of who deserves what; but is simply a question of what we can afford.
Mr. Fulmer agreed with Mr. Sanker. Mr. Fulmer stated that if we truly have a contract we should honor it. However, without appealing we don’t know our chances. Mr. Fulmer worries about jeopardizing all employee paychecks and other necessary services and expenses including the need for a new fire truck, new medic unit, street repair, etc. The City is no good without Police and Fire services, but same can be said of streets, recreation, capital improvements, etc.
The Mayor concurred and said that we will soon be faced with the decision to make payroll or buy necessary equipment. After the initial review, the Law Department’s opinion was to appeal the SERB ruling. For the sake of fairness though, the Fire Fighters are not the only group that are due contractual pay increases.
Mr. DeLuca asked for details about the appeal process and timing. The Mayor responded that the appeal would be to SERB and or the Court of Common Pleas but the entire process is not yet clear.
Continuing with the Administration report Mayor Williams commented on the upcoming letter from Donna Laake regarding the recycling program. The letter states that in December 2003 the City of Norwood recycled 35,920 pounds; in December 2004 we recycled 129,340 pounds. This is a great sign that residents have taken to recycling; this is both good for the City and the environment.
The Mayor commented on Public Works’ effort to fill potholes. As of today, Public Works has applied 17.7 tons of cold mix - 12 tons of which were to the Norwood Lateral.
Mayor Williams also clarified a comment made earlier by Mr. Horney that stated the Administration cited him on building code violations. As a point of clarification, those citations came from the previous Administration.
When opened for questions, Mr. Tracey asked the Mayor for his take on the Police Sub-station. The Mayor responded that the letter from the Police Chief coming later in the agenda states that the funds that supported the sub-station need to be reallocated to operating expenses of the department given the City’s current financial situation. The substation will unfortunately not get the necessary funding to stay open.
Mrs. Brown asked if there had been an attempt to renegotiate the lease or seek assistance in paying for the rent from any citizens or citizens groups. Mayor Williams responded that attempts will be made and that this decision from the Police Department came down very recently. Continuing to operate the substation will be difficult during these times. This is just the beginning of the services to be cut.
Mr. Fulmer asked if there is a possibility that the City could look into Home Owners’ Insurance covering a portion of the cost to fight a house fire. The Mayor concurred that this is something that is being investigated and the direct analogy is that this is done in paying for medic runs during auto accidents.
L) REQUEST TO ADDRESS COUNCIL RE: NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
M)UNFINISHED BUSINESS
On a motion by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Sanker, it was moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the completion of the agreement between Mr. Dahlman and Rookwood Partners Ltd. All members present voted YES.
N) NEW BUSINESS
Mrs. Brown announced that the Hamilton County Business Center is starting a Toastmasters International organization and is looking for interested parties. Toastmasters Int’l is a group focused on developing the public speaking skills of their members. The first meeting is free; thereafter they require nominal membership fees.
Mr. Fulmer noted that in his time serving the 2nd ward the area is more residential than 25 years ago. As an example, two family buildings have been converted to single families, and pony kegs converted to apartment buildings.
On a motion by Mr. Sanker, seconded by Mr. Mumper, it was moved to send a letter from Council to the Hamilton County Commissioners to ask that the City of Norwood be included in any discussions regarding the consolidation of services County wide. All members present voted YES.
Mr. Fulmer announced that those interested in the Homestead Act for property tax relief need to act soon by contacting the Hamilton County Auditor’s office. The Homestead Act is available to the elderly, the disabled, and those on a fixed income.
On a motion by Mr. DeLuca, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved that the planning commission review the zoning currently in effect along the Montgomery Road business Corridor in an effort to promptly identify appropriate changes to the zoning code to eliminate uses in the corridor such as tattoo parlors, pool halls, bingo halls, and self service car washes, which discourage more productive uses from locating along Norwood’s Historic Commercial Corridor. All members present voted YES.
O) COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Letter from Rick Dettmer, Community Development Director RE: Schoolhouse Outfitters Enterprise Zone Agreement.
This communication was heard prior to the consideration of Resolution J-A).
2. Letter from Tim Burke RE: TIF district on Rookwood Exchange Site.
On a motion by Mr. Fulmer, seconded by Mr. Tracey, it was moved that the letter be received and filed. All members present voted YES.
3. Letter from JMA Consultants, Inc. RE: Edwards Road Corridor Urban Renewal District.
On a motion by Mr. Fulmer, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved that the letter be received and filed. All members present voted YES.
4. Letter from HCDC RE: Tax Incentive Review Council.
On a motion by Mr. Fulmer, seconded by Mr. Geers, it was moved that the letter be received and filed and that Mr. Dettmer and Mr. Hanrahan be re-appointed to serve on the TRIC. All members present voted YES.
5. Letter from Donna Laake RE: Recycling Program.
Mr. Fulmer reiterated that this is indeed good news and the funds made available to the City’s recycling program pays for, among other things, recycled yard waste bags for homeowners use. Bags can be picked up at the Health Department.
On a motion by Mr. Fulmer, seconded by Mr. Mumper, it was moved that the letter be received and filed. All members present voted YES.
6. Letter from the Mayor’s Office RE: Mayor’s Court Fines.
On a motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Tracey, it was moved that the letter be received and filed. All members present voted YES.
7. Letter from the Planning Commission RE: Revisions to the Major PUD plan known as Cornerstone at Norwood.
Mr. DeLuca stated that he would coordinate the scheduling of a public hearing date with the Planning Commission and the Clerk of Council.
On a motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Tracey, it was moved that the letter be received and filed and that a Public Hearing be set. Mr. DeLuca will coordinate the scheduling of a public hearing date with the Planning Commission and the Clerk of Council. An appropriate Public Hearing Date will be scheduled and announced. All members present voted YES.
8. Letter from Chief Schlie RE: Recent Snowstorm.
On a motion by Mr. Fulmer, seconded by Mr. Moore, it was moved that the letter be received and filed. All members present voted YES.
9. Letter from the Mayor’s Office RE: Appointment to the Board of Health.
On a motion by Mr. Geers, seconded by Mr. Mumper, it was moved that the letter be received and filed and the appointment be approved. All members present voted YES.
10. Letter from the Law Department RE: Law Director’s Yearly Report.
On a motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Tracey, it was moved that the letter be received and filed. All members present voted YES.
11. Letter from Joseph C. Geers, Director of Public Service-Safety RE: West Norwood Sub-Station.
Mrs. Brown asked a question through the Chair to the Mayor why the decision was so delayed. The Mayor responded that we are all trying to keep doors open and bills paid. He certainly sees the point although it probably won’t change given the financial concerns.
Mr. Fulmer thanked Joe Geers, Ruth Cain, Council and the Mayor for their hard work in establishing the sub-station. This certainly provided a service while it was there. The Mayor responded that the Chief feels this money could be better served in other operating expenses of the department.
Mrs. Brown reiterated that she would have liked to have seen an effort with local citizens groups to generate the necessary money to keep this substation in operation.
Mr. Moore concurred that this decision seems to have been made very recently and doubts the landlord has a tenant ready to sign and perhaps there is a small window of opportunity to keep this operational.
Mr. DeLuca asked the administration to look into what could be salvaged from the sub-station and a possible relocation to the Community Center.
On a motion by Mr. Fulmer, seconded by Mr. Geers, it was moved that the letter be received and filed. All members present voted YES.
12. Letter from Joseph C. Geers, Director of Public Service-Safety RE: Police and Fire Grants.
On a motion by Mr. Mumper, seconded by Mr. Tracey, it was moved that the letter be received and filed and place this issue in the Finance Committee. All members present voted YES.
13. Letter from Assistant Law Director, Ted Kiser RE: Amended Ordinance Revising Chapter 163 Urban Renewal.
This communication was heard prior to the consideration of Ordinance I-A).
P) EXCUSE ABSENT MEMBERS
All members are present.
Q) ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Mr.Tracey, seconded by Mr. Mumper, it was moved to adjourn. All members present voted YES.
______________________________ ______________________________
J. Brian Mumper Jane
M. Grote
Clerk of Council President
of Council